View Full Version : Save this old man and your rights at the same time.
Your help is needed to protect your right to self defense and personal property.
This is not some far away land, this is Wheat-Ridge Colorado.
Two known illegals stole an 82 year old mans trailer and attempted to run him over in the process, he fired shots and striking one of the men. The illegals with prior offenses have been given a deal by the District Attorney to escape charges and testify against the 82 year old citizen.
The criminals have already consulted a lawyer to get their civil suit in order so they can sue him for everything he has after the successful prosecution.
Your Rights and Liberty are being taken away daily and this is YOUR chance to put pressure on this DA and let them know We The People will not stand for this and set things straight.
The illegals should be prosecuted for being criminals and after serving their time be deported and banned from reentering the U.S.
Here is the DA you need to contact:
Scott Storey
District Attorney
500 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
303-271-6800
Read the story http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-theives-free-victim-arrested-txt,0,231586.story (http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-theives-free-victim-arrested-txt,0,231586.story) and listen to Peter Boyles on 630 Khow to learn more and future ways how you can help out.
Fun extra facts that Peter has exposed:
One of these men is being investigated for a car theft ring.
One of these men has escaped criminal charges in the past by taking the famous plea bargin of agricultural trespassing which is not a criminal charge and allows someone to escape deportation.
I called the DA, please call also.
Another path to contact Scott Story:
EMAIL:
swstorey@comcast.net
HBARleatherneck
07-07-2010, 10:15
I emailed him. And let him know his doing a disservice to our country by enabling criminals. I told him I hoped it cost him his job, if continues with the prosecution of Mr Wallace.
illegal aliens have more rights than the citizens... sent email also. I'm not very eloquent but this pisses me off. They are prosecuting an 82 year old citizen because he tried to protect himself and property from two KNOWN illegal criminals? Unbelieveable...
Byte Stryke
07-07-2010, 10:39
everyone has a boss... someone looking over their shoulder.
Who is his?
Who do DAs Report to?
or is that us?
there must be some sort of checks and balances.
HBARleatherneck
07-07-2010, 10:55
they run for office, just like sheriffs
they can all so be run out of office.
time to get to work.
Byte Stryke
07-07-2010, 10:59
OK So as I understand it this guy is a county DA...
So in his criminal negligence of his office he has violated laws?
Why isn't the state DAs office charging him?
Maybe we should be calling that office.
I love how these guys confessed yet will not be charged.
Hopefully the DA has something very bad happen to them.
Byte Stryke
07-07-2010, 11:20
State Attorney Generals office
1525 Sherman St.
Denver, Colorado 80203
P: 303-866-4500
F: 303-866-5691
attorney.general@state.co.us
because Scott wont charge himself.
ChunkyMonkey
07-07-2010, 11:21
Called and emailed.
CrufflerSteve
07-07-2010, 11:32
I think this is a longer term problem and needs state laws changed. Colorado has always limited property owner's rights of defense of the property. The Make My Day was an attempt to correct some of this. This needs to keep going. As I understand it Texas has a good set of laws where people can defend property without worrying about being locked up forever.
DA's are just thugs in suits. They'll use whatever laws they have to convict people. Just pay you never get into it a system where your ability to pay an expensive lawyer means more than guilt or innocence. Just make sure the laws they'll use and abuse are better.
Steve
I think this is a longer term problem and needs state laws changed. Colorado has always limited property owner's rights of defense of the property.
Colorado statue 18-1-704 and 18-1-706 does give him this right, unfortunatly the DA will argue that the men who were going to run him over with thier truck did not pose "imminent danger" to Mr Wallace, although law enforcement uses this all the time in their defense to justify shooting a suspect who point a car at them.
I contacted the State Attorney General office for whats its worth also.
ronaldrwl
07-07-2010, 12:10
I sent a email. Has anyone else done this and received a reply? What possible motivation would a DA have to keep letting these criminals off the hook?
clublights
07-07-2010, 12:25
I sent a email. Has anyone else done this and received a reply? What possible motivation would a DA have to keep letting these criminals off the hook?
12 felony counts for the old man........
probably only 2 felony counts for the guys who stole the trailer.
That's this jackhole's motivation. pure numbers, add a " gun toting maniac".. " off the streets" and you have a DA's wet dream.
don't forget the $$$... the more successful cases he has, the more $$$ gets into his pocket. And with the general makeup of libtards, even though he's 82 he could've jumped out of the way of the oncoming car and thus it didn't pose an immement threat and so we'll send the poor old bastard to jail for... life!
catch the sarcasm.
I sent a email. Has anyone else done this and received a reply? What possible motivation would a DA have to keep letting these criminals off the hook?
I have not recieved a reply to my email or calls but I am sure they are overwhelmed at this point, at least I hope they are.
Spread the word and call daily so they fell the heat for some time.
The motivation is pure politics, many DA's move into politics as their next step. Colorado is run by liberals at this point and they support the illegals and when illegals vote they vote for who helps them. Politics is big money and thats the motivation.
Republicans and Democrats both have a reason they want illegals in this country.
We need to clean house in the coming elections, from local to federal level.
CrufflerSteve
07-07-2010, 13:19
It's also a full employment program for trial lawyers. He can probably afford more legal help than the thieves.
Steve
Jumpstart
07-07-2010, 13:39
E-mailed. Yeah, yeah I know, I'm racist......(insert copious amounts of sarcasm)
Thanks for posting the e-address!
Scanker19
07-07-2010, 14:12
No we could let him win and get all the money then break in his house cut our selves on the broken window and sue him for every thing. the lawyer i mean.
How have we not revolted yet is nothing short of a miracle
Birddog1911
07-07-2010, 14:55
Emailed. Don't know what good it can do. Thanks for bringing this up. Pete Boyles always does a great service for Coloradoans as well.
Shooting at someone as they drive away is illegal, even in Texas and Florida. The article doesn't say explicitly if the perp's face has an entry or exit wound...that will make all the difference for this old chap. Given the speed at which the charges were filed, I would have to ass-u-me he has was shot from behind. Anyone have more info on that?
Call your state congress critter (not the DA) to have the law changed. And vote them all - both (R) and (D) - out of office. The sense of entitlement by elected officials has to stop somewhere. We are a country of laws - and as long as shit laws are on the books guys like this fellow have to suffer for them.
Best case scenario for this guy: jury nullification, and the 2 perps get off scot free and victimize someone with a better aim and more ammo in a few days.
Hopefully he gets a square jury which knows what their nullification options are.
Jumpstart
07-07-2010, 15:28
Texas has the Castle Doctrine of course. Joe Bird (?) in Houston area shot 2 fleeing (if I recall correctly) robbers/illegal aliens dead a few years back.
People were calling the incident a "twofer"....
Off topic: Anyone watching Glenn Beck right now? Wish I could watch him more, he rocks.
Affidavit here http://www.khow.com/cc-common/mlib/636/07/636_1278519701.pdf
Look like he did not shoot in self defense so that part he will have to take the rap on but the 2 offenders should be charged and prosecuted and deported.
clublights
07-07-2010, 16:23
Affidavit here http://www.khow.com/cc-common/mlib/636/07/636_1278519701.pdf
Look like he did not shoot in self defense so that part he will have to take the rap on but the 2 offenders should be charged and prosecuted and deported.
I had a feeling that there was something missing from the story......
still the DA should be charging EVERYONE in the damn case. why do these two scumbags get to get off ?
HBARleatherneck
07-07-2010, 16:33
you steal, you get shot. o well.
no tears here.
if you get shot during the commision of a felony, they should not press charges against the shooter. my opinion of course. or at least i hope the jury is sympathetic to the fact that criminals started the course of events. and this man acted after that.
and being the advanced landing party of a foreign invading army, you just deserve to be shot.
and i dont care what you say. so there.
the old man should have, called the popo immediately instead of covering it up. and then steared the investigation in the right direction with an attorney. but he could preface his invoking his 5th ammendment rights with " i was in fear for my life, i felt i was in immenent danger" then call his attorney
SA Friday
07-07-2010, 16:36
The DA is obligated to file charges based on the info in the affidavit.
I don't like the circumstances any more than the rest of you, but the affidavit is pretty clear on what happened and how the guy handled it.
I'm not sure I could shoot a man over a flatbed trailer, but there is a lot to be said in having the right to defend your property from being stolen. The question as to if one should have the right to kill another to protect their property is quite a debate. Most states say, no as ours does.
Pretty sure the guy that got shot in the face didn't get off scot-free. The other guy should be charged with the theft. Both should be deported (to return in a month...).
I'm still waiting on the DA to file charges against the theives or is the DA only obligated to file charges against people who dont make stealing others properties their hobby/carrier.
I know the DA has discretion on who to prosecute, for what circumstances I dont know.
Keep calling and emailing the DA until the carrier criminals are charged and prosecuted.
Deportaion does not work unless we seal the borders, and criminals will continue to do what they do until we make it illegal to file a civil suit against your victims and we make theft an offense you can be killed for like Texas has.
If these 2 dirt bags were not here illegaly and the earlier offenses were not pleaded down and the Fed's did their job at the border and with illegals this would not have happened and Mr. Wallace would not have been put into this situation.
This case is full of all kinds of government failure and it keeps on going.
If the one perp dies, can his friend be charged with his death? I know that's the law in some places.
I don't exactly understand this term "known illegal", if it is known you're here illegally than why the f*&% are you still here? Couple of scumbags, hope they both get killed next time.
Colorado Luckydog
07-07-2010, 19:43
I think the old man should be in a lot of trouble for not shooting and killing both of them. Maybe we should cut him a little slack for being 82.[ROFL1]
I emailed the D.A and let him know what I think and I'll make some phone calls tomorrow. This crime and situation, along with thousands of others, can all be tied to a long list of failures from our government. Our government needs an enema.
Byte Stryke
07-07-2010, 20:37
well if anything else, I hope at least one guy learned something from this.
" 'ey, 'ole-in-yer-face Rodriguez, chu wanna go steal a trailer maing?"
When I called the DA office today asked to direct all comments through their web site http://jeffco.us/da/da_T99_R94.htm
I think its to easy to ignore people that way, keep calling
Scott Storey
District Attorney
500 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
303-271-6800
They work for us and need know that we dont allow one party to get away with a crime because its politicaly correct, these thieves need to be charged with everything they can be and thrown in jail.
palepainter
07-08-2010, 08:54
Thanks for the link, I emailed the liberal cocksucker.
ChunkyMonkey
07-08-2010, 12:31
I got a voicemail and email back.
----- Original Message -----
From: swstorey@comcast.net
To: Ken
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Thieves walk away?
Ken- Please don't rush t judgment in this case. Unfortunately I cannot comment ethically about a pending prosecution. I have never said that others would not be charged in this case. The investigation has not been completed.
My next response would be, you are on the spotlight now, please do what's right.
Nice, no response here.
Funny how they can charge the actual victim right away but the criminals they need to have an investigation first, even though they have the confession and both sides of the story already.
Byte Stryke
07-08-2010, 16:27
Thanks for the link, I emailed the liberal cocksucker.
"Dear Liberal Cockersucker...
[ROFL1]
I think there might be a leak in the N2O bottle....
robsterclaw
07-08-2010, 17:04
My gas grill only cost $599 dollars and I'd have loved the chance to shoot the fucker that stole it. It's not the value, it's the hard work and long hours that go into earning the money to buy the stuff. I wanted a stainless steel grill for years, I saved up for a year to get it. Then they come on my property and take it. Ya, I'd have liked to shoot or beat them.
robsterclaw
07-08-2010, 17:04
"Dear Liberal Cockersucker...
[ROFL1]
I think there might be a leak in the N2O bottle....
Is there any other kind of liberal?
Shooting at someone as they drive away is illegal, even in Texas and Florida.
There was a case in Texas where a guy got his truck repo'd after dark. The truck owner shot the repo guy through the back window of the truck as he drove away and was not charged with anything. He was protected by the Texas Castle Doctrine. Also, your life can be in danger from someone behind the wheel. They will only be driving away, AFTER they run you over and kill you.
I haven't been around for a while, but I was glad to see that this story made it here.
HBARleatherneck
07-09-2010, 05:47
my neighbor had his horse stolen, the night before last.
we had a light sprinkle of rain so all the tracks were fresh. this person parked down on the county road. then walked over 1/4 mile to the horses pasture. caught the horse, and then walked the horse back down to the waiting trailer. they had to walk right past my neighbors house. he works for the SO. I know he wishes he could have wallaced them. I wish I could have wallaced them. my quote would have been(sarcasm) " but deputy, I had to shoot them, we dont have trees around here to hang them" $6000 horse by the way. gray with a brand if you see it wandering denver.
Is there any other kind of liberal?
Jeffersonian Liberal.
You'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal group than Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington. They were the radical left of the time with their "all men are equal" and "men can rule themselves without a monarch" nonsense ;)
Jumpstart
07-09-2010, 07:55
Jeffersonian Liberal.
You'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal group than Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington. They were the radical left of the time with their "all men are equal" and "men can rule themselves without a monarch" nonsense ;)
Now these men would be considered conservatives. They would probably throw tea parties, if you know what I mean.....
Now these men would be considered conservatives. They would probably throw tea parties, if you know what I mean.....
Hmm. Not sure I agree. These days they would be considered "turrists" since they either financed, led, or rallied a group to take up arms, in a non-traditional fashion, against their established government.
I believe we are at a unique point in the history of government, in that some of us consider a giant ( 100+ year) leap backwards in governance as being progress. Is wiping the books and starting over conservative or progressive?
Liberal President....Republican Senator....Democratic Congressman...Conservative Representative....it makes no difference. They are all politicians, and they are all scumbags of the highest order. Vote them all out of office, as they are all part of the problem either by activity or apathy.
HBARleatherneck
07-09-2010, 11:32
Liberal President....Republican Senator....Democratic Congressman...Conservative Representative....it makes no difference. They are all politicians, and they are all scumbags of the highest order. Vote them all out of office, as they are all part of the problem either by activity or apathy.
this is exactly right. democrat=republican=politician. they are all bad.545 people who need to be booted from the federal government. right now. and plenty more state and locally.
[quote=mitch;219805]I believe we are at a unique point in the history of government, in that some of us consider a giant ( 100+ year) leap backwards in governance as being progress. Is wiping the books and starting over conservative or progressive?[quote]
Whats your position?
I would rather take a 200 year leap back in governance if that means taking much of the power away from the goverment that they have accumulated up to now.
I wont accept the current path we are on, taking the leap back 300 years and ending up with a monarchy or the path of evil and having a socialist rule.
this is exactly right. democrat=republican=politician. they are all bad.545 people who need to be booted from the federal government. right now. and plenty more state and locally.
Right on, time to stock up on rope and timber, at least 545 people need to swing.
SA Friday
07-09-2010, 12:49
Jeffersonian Liberal.
You'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal group than Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington. They were the radical left of the time with their "all men are equal" and "men can rule themselves without a monarch" nonsense ;)
Jefferson founded the Republican party and firmly believed in a weak central government, small or no federal debt, and states rights dominated federals rules.
Adams and Washington were from the Federalists party and believed in a strong federal government maintaining the states in a united country. The main driving force in the Federalist party was Andrew Hamilton, Sec of Treasury in Washington's administration.
Franklin never chose either of the parties. He was too busy partying and having lots of extra-marital sex in France at the time.
None of them could agree on the first quote, and they only agreed on the part 'without a monarchy" in the second quote.
palepainter
07-09-2010, 13:03
I think Franklin had it right. :)
StagLefty
07-09-2010, 14:37
I think we've gone so far over the edge that neither party is worth a crap anymore. They are so far out of touch with what we face day to day that they scratch their heads when confronted with our problems.[Rant1]
OneGuy67
07-09-2010, 14:46
What Peter Boyles originally argued and some have made mention here is why the two thieves haven't been prosecuted yet for the theft. What he and others (including myself) may not know is, are these two part of a greater and more wide-reaching investigation that upon its completion, charges against the two thieves and others will result? Maybe they are cooperating witnesses to that greater investigation, to further that investigation. Not out of the question or norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Peter didn't think the investigation should continue for the time it has, but I do know from personal experience that investigations can take months and years before indictments are brought to bear.
Mr. Wallace was not in imminent threat of injury by what was sworn to in the arrest affidavit and instead, was standing on a porch and fired two rounds indescriminately in the direction of the two thieves. What would people think and post if those rounds didn't hit the truck and the thief, but instead, a sleeping juvenile in bed across the street?
Please get the facts (and not just from television news reports) before making snap judgments.
What Peter Boyles originally argued and some have made mention here is why the two thieves haven't been prosecuted yet for the theft. What he and others (including myself) may not know is, are these two part of a greater and more wide-reaching investigation that upon its completion, charges against the two thieves and others will result? Maybe they are cooperating witnesses to that greater investigation, to further that investigation. Not out of the question or norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Peter didn't think the investigation should continue for the time it has, but I do know from personal experience that investigations can take months and years before indictments are brought to bear.
Mr. Wallace was not in imminent threat of injury by what was sworn to in the arrest affidavit and instead, was standing on a porch and fired two rounds indescriminately in the direction of the two thieves. What would people think and post if those rounds didn't hit the truck and the thief, but instead, a sleeping juvenile in bed across the street?
Please get the facts (and not just from television news reports) before making snap judgments.
And we're supposed to believe that these to illegal immigrant scumbags weren't charged because they're part of a larger, ongoing trailer theft investigation that will bear fruit months if not years from now?
I call bullshit.
What Peter Boyles originally argued and some have made mention here is why the two thieves haven't been prosecuted yet for the theft. What he and others (including myself) may not know is, are these two part of a greater and more wide-reaching investigation that upon its completion, charges against the two thieves and others will result? Maybe they are cooperating witnesses to that greater investigation, to further that investigation. Not out of the question or norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Peter didn't think the investigation should continue for the time it has, but I do know from personal experience that investigations can take months and years before indictments are brought to bear.
Mr. Wallace was not in imminent threat of injury by what was sworn to in the arrest affidavit and instead, was standing on a porch and fired two rounds indescriminately in the direction of the two thieves. What would people think and post if those rounds didn't hit the truck and the thief, but instead, a sleeping juvenile in bed across the street?
Please get the facts (and not just from television news reports) before making snap judgments.
I dont care what larger theft investigation they are part of, facts seem to say that at least one of these illegals was given a plea to ag trespassing and not deported. Is that because he was part of a bigger investigation or part of a bigger political agenda to destory this county. I will agree its part of the bigger agenda to destroy this country.
You want to bust that bigger illegal ring, go deport them and seal the border, and the problem is solved.
Byte Stryke
07-09-2010, 15:49
What Peter Boyles originally argued and some have made mention here is why the two thieves haven't been prosecuted yet for the theft. What he and others (including myself) may not know is, are these two part of a greater and more wide-reaching investigation that upon its completion, charges against the two thieves and others will result? Maybe they are cooperating witnesses to that greater investigation, to further that investigation. Not out of the question or norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Peter didn't think the investigation should continue for the time it has, but I do know from personal experience that investigations can take months and years before indictments are brought to bear.
Mr. Wallace was not in imminent threat of injury by what was sworn to in the arrest affidavit and instead, was standing on a porch and fired two rounds indescriminately in the direction of the two thieves. What would people think and post if those rounds didn't hit the truck and the thief, but instead, a sleeping juvenile in bed across the street?
Please get the facts (and not just from television news reports) before making snap judgments.
So scott.. ermm I mean OneGuy67,
Tell us a little bit about yourself and "Your Experience"
you could be a Meter maid or, say, I Dunno.. something Like a DA employee.
I mean, I once worked for a summer on a farm in Kentucky(Near Mt Washington) cleaning Stables for $30 a day
So I would say, In my experience, I Pretty much know Horseshit when I Smell it.
Affidavit here http://www.khow.com/cc-common/mlib/636/07/636_1278519701.pdf
Look like he did not shoot in self defense so that part he will have to take the rap on but the 2 offenders should be charged and prosecuted and deported.
(still @Oneguy67)Just so that YOU have YOUR Facts straight, not everyone Jumped to conclusions based on Left or right slanted popular media.
Have a great day
:D
I mean, I once worked for a summer on a farm in Kentucky(Near Mt Washington) cleaning Stables.
Horses smell SOOOO much better than cleaning pig slop... trust me on this one... lol. [Beer]
Whats your position?
I would rather take a 200 year leap back in governance if that means taking much of the power away from the goverment that they have accumulated up to now.
I wont accept the current path we are on, taking the leap back 300 years and ending up with a monarchy or the path of evil and having a socialist rule.
Couldn't agree more.
My position is Libertarian, if that sums it up well enough. That basically means I'm fiscal conservative, pro states rights, and a really far left extremist on personal freedoms.
HBARleatherneck
07-09-2010, 16:14
da or pd. but probably one of those offices.
if it quacks like a duck...
Couldn't agree more.
My position is Libertarian, if that sums it up well enough. That basically means I'm fiscal conservative, pro states rights, and a really far left extremist on personal freedoms.
Cool, just making sure no damn commie was posting in my thread. ;)
Byte Stryke
07-09-2010, 18:51
Couldn't agree more.
My position is Libertarian, if that sums it up well enough. That basically means I'm fiscal conservative, pro states rights, and a really far left extremist on personal freedoms.
I Dunno if I like them Thar Libertarians...
Sumpin wrong with two girls gettin it on an aint no man thar...
Jes sayin'
:D
(Joking)
I Dunno if I like them Thar Libertarians...
Sumpin wrong with two girls gettin it on an aint no man thar...
Jes sayin'
:D
(Joking)
You are thinking of Librarians. [Tooth]
Byte Stryke
07-09-2010, 20:42
I Dunno if I like them Thar Libertarians...
Sumpin wrong with two girls gettin it on an aint no man thar...
Jes sayin'
:D
(Joking)
You are thinking of Librarians. [Tooth]
ahh Ma Bad
Don't give me any bullshit about any "larger investigations." There have been several major car theft rings in the Denver Metro and Colorado Springs areas for at least the last 10 years now, probably more like 25. The police don't, and won't, do jack shit about it.
I've got a buddy that has had his completely stock Honda Civic Si stolen over 6 times now. He has low jack (didn't even know he had it until the first time it was stolen). One of the more recent times it was stolen, the police found the car INSIDE someone's garage with a wrench and socket laying on the windshield ready to take the plates off. The officer asked the person living there why my friend's car was in the garage. He said, "I don't know, it's not my car though." There weren't any charges filed, no prints taken, not a single fucking thing was done at all. I guess it must have been "part of a larger investigation."
rockhound
07-09-2010, 23:26
Mr, Storey,
My understanding of the Robert Wallace shooting case is that the illegal aliens that committed the theft of Mr. Wallace’s flatbed trailer have been given plea bargains and will not face prosecution. Torres already has one “agricultural trespass” charge. I believe this is the same plea that our infamous governor Bill Ritter used during his tenure as Attorney General to allow “illegals” to avoid prosecution and avoid being deported.
I would believe that this means this scumbag already committed a crime in which he was allowed to plead out in order avoid prosecution.
If Mr. Wallace has indeed committed a crime he should be prosecuted under our laws and afforded any legal means to defend himself. By the same token if your office intends to prosecute this US citizen and give any kind of leniency to the lousy thieves that committed the crime that led to MR. Wallace’s actions, shame on you.
I expect our officials to stand up for the rights of a US citizen before those of any illegal alien, much less those who have a criminal history. I do not live in your district, but I have friends that do. If you should develop a habit of giving clemency to illegal aliens who have committed crimes in our state I will certainly encourage anyone I know in your district to oppose your next election bid.
Regards,
Shane Wagner
C.M.A.S.
Broker/Owner
TWIN SUMMITS REALTY
www.breckvacationhomes.com
www.baileycoloradohomesforsale.com
www.twinsummitsrealty.com
office: 303-816-9281
cell: 720-394-2542
fax: 303-593-9261
Don't give me any bullshit about any "larger investigations." There have been several major car theft rings in the Denver Metro and Colorado Springs areas for at least the last 10 years now, probably more like 25. The police don't, and won't, do jack shit about it.
I've got a buddy that has had his completely stock Honda Civic Si stolen over 6 times now. He has low jack (didn't even know he had it until the first time it was stolen). One of the more recent times it was stolen, the police found the car INSIDE someone's garage with a wrench and socket laying on the windshield ready to take the plates off. The officer asked the person living there why my friend's car was in the garage. He said, "I don't know, it's not my car though." There weren't any charges filed, no prints taken, not a single fucking thing was done at all. I guess it must have been "part of a larger investigation."
wow.. knowing the CSPD you'd think they would have at least written them a ticket to get some $$ for the city.
Byte Stryke
07-10-2010, 06:00
Bravo Rockhound!
This am news says the hold that was on these thieves that stoped the wheatridge police from filing charges against them was released.
Arrest warrents were issued and they or at least 1 of them was picked up already and ice was actually informed this time.
Glad a few thousand phone calls and all the coverage was able to start the wheel of justice rolling, now we need to make sure these scum bag thieves are not given a plea again and face the maximun amount of charges they can place on them.
Im sure they are not a flight risk since they are model illegal thieves and wont flee, lets see if the 100k bond will actually hold them.
Update this morning... http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15481877
Man, this happened Feb.24th? Why is it only becoming news this week?
theGinsue
07-11-2010, 00:18
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when this thread started.
You've got a situation where a vicious gun-toting racist goes all O.K. Corral on a couple of poor hard-working undocumented migrant night shift workers who were doing nothing more than trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
I can't imagine why the totally un-biased news media didn't jump right on this. It's right up their alley.
I'm going to email tomorrow. This isn't California this is Colorado and we don't charge the victim.
gnihcraes
07-11-2010, 08:57
The wife told me that they have picked up the thieves in this story, I haven't found verification of that yet on the net... doh, ok, link posted above^^
Stupid should hurt. Really hurt. I would love to see the news media get a migraine as they read this story.
Byte Stryke
07-11-2010, 10:57
I Still find it incredible that the legislative branch of our state and of this country has failed to allow our citizens to protect themselves from rape, theft and murder by illegal immigrants and other assorted OUTLAWS.
The man sitting in his home that has worked hard and Honestly all of his life for the things he has should have every right to protect their Home and Property.
still pisses me off.
Birddog1911
07-11-2010, 15:11
It'd be a shame if the two illegals just disappeared, ya' know. Just saying.
SA Friday
07-11-2010, 23:31
People deserve a trial. It isn't American for any person to be the judge-jury-executioner all in one package if their is no risk to life at the given moment.
Fact is, he'd have no idea if they were illegal or legal when he fired at them as they drove away.
Note: I didn't read the news story. I don't have to be. I don't agree with Texas' law and we don't need one here. Loss of property or money does not in itself equate with the legal or moral authority to end someones life. That concept can earn the shooting community in general a bad reputation.
Just remember - if nobodies life is in danger, you better not be pulling the trigger. That's why they invented insurance after all.
A bullet doesn't have the ability to make a great determination of guilt or innocence after it leaves the barrel either, and people are not thinking or aiming soundly in the heat of the moment.
As for prosecution of him? Thats not for me to decide. I'd say yes, he should be, with a degree of leniency. Definetly top level prosecution for the illegals. But I don't know the case.
The results of critical thinking. Best post of the thread, and I couldn't agree more.
Seamonkey
07-11-2010, 23:36
So I'm wondering... if CO had the same immigration law that AZ has... could "we the people" sue the cops for not holding/deporting the illegals?
Whether someone is illegal or not should have zero bearing on whether you should be shooting at them or not.
ChunkyMonkey
07-12-2010, 00:27
@foxtrot, the OP and many of us are questioning why the thieves were not prosecuted in the first 4-5 months, while there home owner was charged with first degree murder within a week.
I'd ignore the dumb posts.
People deserve a trial. It isn't American for any person to be the judge-jury-executioner all in one package if their is no risk to life at the given moment.
Fact is, he'd have no idea if they were illegal or legal when he fired at them as they drove away.
Note: I didn't read the news story. I don't have to be. I don't agree with Texas' law and we don't need one here. Loss of property or money does not in itself equate with the legal or moral authority to end someones life. That concept can earn the shooting community in general a bad reputation.
Just remember - if nobodies life is in danger, you better not be pulling the trigger. That's why they invented insurance after all.
A bullet doesn't have the ability to make a great determination of guilt or innocence after it leaves the barrel either, and people are not thinking or aiming soundly in the heat of the moment.
As for prosecution of him? Thats not for me to decide. I'd say yes, he should be, with a degree of leniency. Definetly top level prosecution for the illegals. But I don't know the case.
The issue at hand is why were the thieves not charge when this happened months ago?
Why did at least one of the thieves get a plea deal from grand theft to agriculture trespassing which is a common plea arrangement given to illegals in the front range so that ICE will not be notified and the illegal can avoid deportation, when he was arrested last time?
Since at least one of these illegals was given a plea to avoid deportation by law enforcement in an earlier prosecution then the fact remains that this man would not have been here to commit the crime that caused Mr.Wallace to defend (himself or his property, the court will decided which he was doing) then why should he be charged and facing a felony when this is the falut of law enforcement?
palepainter
07-12-2010, 08:55
Exactly..... Try the plea bargaining in Iran or elsewhere.
OneGuy67
07-12-2010, 10:14
Wow! I've been a little busy this weekend and unable to get back to this thread and I've been tarred and feathered by some here. I've been accused of being the DA involved in this case and apparently, an idiot. Thanks people! I appreciate it. I'll endeavor to review these strings next time while I'm on my National Guard drill weekend, so I'll know when people are calling me names and accusing me of being something that I am not.
I am relatively new to this site and have an interest in guns, which is why I am on this site. The politics aside, it is a great site for people to gather that share an interest in firearms.
That being said, I really don't appreciate the attacks on me. I am capable of reading and I have read the damn arrest affidavit regarding Mr. Wallace and no where on there does Mr. Wallace tell the cops investigating that he went outside and was nearly run over, which is why he allegedly shot. In fact, it appears he stood on his porch and fired a couple of shots at them as they were fleeing. If that is the case, he needs to be charged. The affidavit is a down and dirty version of events and I would love to read the entire case report on it and to see what information was obtained in a subsequent interview with Mr. Wallace or if he wrote out a statement.
Additionally, I am a cop and have done a number of these types of investigations in my nearly 20 years a cop and some of them (investigations) take time. Some of them, as it appears in this case, took a back seat to other, more serious investigations than a simple theft of a trailer. A trailer valued at $2,000 is a felony, but just a simple felony theft. That's it. If these two mopes were involved in an auto theft ring as alleged, then those charges are more serious and have far more serious penalties than a simple felony theft of an item valued at $2,000. It appears that when the detectives in the auto theft task force didn't have anything good on these guys, the warrants prepared by Wheat Ridge PD for their arrest on the simple theft were signed and they were scooped up.
As to the agricultural trespass conviction, I can' speak to that. I don't know why it was used or the circumstances that brought it about. To blanket say it was because the suspect was illegal and the DA didn't want him deported is pretty generic and inflamatory, which is what some want. To fan the flames. How many others have been offered a ag trespass plea bargain that weren't illegal? Was that a norm plea bargain offer for specific felony charges, no matter the gender, ethnicity or immigration status of the suspect? I don't know and I'm betting you don't either.
For me, I would prefer to deport all illegals that were contacted by law enforcement. I've run into a lot of them over the years, especially while on patrol and conducting traffic enforcement. An inability to understand English, not having a driver's license issued in Colorado, providing a matricular consular ID or a mexican driver's license (most were fraudulent and poorly at that), the vehicle belongs to "someone else" and the insurance card was good for only 30 days in order to get the plates were general clues to me that the person may not be a born or naturalized citizen of the US. The feds wouldn't come get them, so that left me with writing a ticket and impounding the vehicle if I could prove the insurance was fraudulent. Now, most do not realize that Kansas and Washington states have gone to issuing driver's licenses and I saw a number of those during these contacts. Not hard to turn in your Kansas DL and get a Colorado DL.
So, there it is. Feel free to vilify me some more.
OneGuy67
07-12-2010, 10:23
People deserve a trial. It isn't American for any person to be the judge-jury-executioner all in one package if their is no risk to life at the given moment.
Fact is, he'd have no idea if they were illegal or legal when he fired at them as they drove away.
Note: I didn't read the news story. I don't have to be. I don't agree with Texas' law and we don't need one here. Loss of property or money does not in itself equate with the legal or moral authority to end someones life. That concept can earn the shooting community in general a bad reputation.
Just remember - if nobodies life is in danger, you better not be pulling the trigger. That's why they invented insurance after all.
A bullet doesn't have the ability to make a great determination of guilt or innocence after it leaves the barrel either, and people are not thinking or aiming soundly in the heat of the moment.
As for prosecution of him? Thats not for me to decide. I'd say yes, he should be, with a degree of leniency. Definetly top level prosecution for the illegals. But I don't know the case.
Thanks Foxtrot...Very rational.
Now, most do not realize that Kansas and Washington states have gone to issuing driver's licenses and I saw a number of those during these contacts. Not hard to turn in your Kansas DL and get a Colorado DL.
Don't all states issue driver's licenses? Maybe you could clear that up a bit so we know what you mean.
OneGuy67
07-12-2010, 10:32
Sorry! What I meant was, those particular states have a looser requirement than Colorado in obtaining driver's licenses (documentation, licensing requirements, etc) and I have seen those who are illegal aliens obtain driver's licenses from them in great numbers.
Your not a cop. YOU DON'T WRITE IN ALL CAPS. lol j/k
Good write up.
While we are all like minded people here we can get dragged down in minor details and quibble about them to no end. Its just because we are so damn smart and good looking that its hard to find fault in each other IMHO.
So this brings me to the fact that a man protecting his property should not be assumed guilty because he shot at the perpetrators involved. We must assume that he was justified in it until a time that a prosecutor presents evidence to prove a crime was committed.
Letting the criminals off with a slap on the wrist is not ok if any of the other allegations against them are true. Being an undocumented and illegal alien plus part of a car theft ring is pretty bad and reason to push for justice. But if that is the case they are just going to keep doing it because letting them off makes us look like we are pussies.
I'm tired of it and I want something done about crime, criminals and politicians. And I don't care if their feelings or power gets hurt as long as its fair for all the people now and in the future.
palepainter
07-12-2010, 10:50
Wow! I've been a little busy this weekend and unable to get back to this thread and I've been tarred and feathered by some here. I've been accused of being the DA involved in this case and apparently, an idiot. Thanks people! I appreciate it. I'll endeavor to review these strings next time while I'm on my National Guard drill weekend, so I'll know when people are calling me names and accusing me of being something that I am not.
I am relatively new to this site and have an interest in guns, which is why I am on this site. The politics aside, it is a great site for people to gather that share an interest in firearms.
That being said, I really don't appreciate the attacks on me. I am capable of reading and I have read the damn arrest affidavit regarding Mr. Wallace and no where on there does Mr. Wallace tell the cops investigating that he went outside and was nearly run over, which is why he allegedly shot. In fact, it appears he stood on his porch and fired a couple of shots at them as they were fleeing. If that is the case, he needs to be charged. The affidavit is a down and dirty version of events and I would love to read the entire case report on it and to see what information was obtained in a subsequent interview with Mr. Wallace or if he wrote out a statement.
Additionally, I am a cop and have done a number of these types of investigations in my nearly 20 years a cop and some of them (investigations) take time. Some of them, as it appears in this case, took a back seat to other, more serious investigations than a simple theft of a trailer. A trailer valued at $2,000 is a felony, but just a simple felony theft. That's it. If these two mopes were involved in an auto theft ring as alleged, then those charges are more serious and have far more serious penalties than a simple felony theft of an item valued at $2,000. It appears that when the detectives in the auto theft task force didn't have anything good on these guys, the warrants prepared by Wheat Ridge PD for their arrest on the simple theft were signed and they were scooped up.
As to the agricultural trespass conviction, I can' speak to that. I don't know why it was used or the circumstances that brought it about. To blanket say it was because the suspect was illegal and the DA didn't want him deported is pretty generic and inflamatory, which is what some want. To fan the flames. How many others have been offered a ag trespass plea bargain that weren't illegal? Was that a norm plea bargain offer for specific felony charges, no matter the gender, ethnicity or immigration status of the suspect? I don't know and I'm betting you don't either.
For me, I would prefer to deport all illegals that were contacted by law enforcement. I've run into a lot of them over the years, especially while on patrol and conducting traffic enforcement. An inability to understand English, not having a driver's license issued in Colorado, providing a matricular consular ID or a mexican driver's license (most were fraudulent and poorly at that), the vehicle belongs to "someone else" and the insurance card was good for only 30 days in order to get the plates were general clues to me that the person may not be a born or naturalized citizen of the US. The feds wouldn't come get them, so that left me with writing a ticket and impounding the vehicle if I could prove the insurance was fraudulent. Now, most do not realize that Kansas and Washington states have gone to issuing driver's licenses and I saw a number of those during these contacts. Not hard to turn in your Kansas DL and get a Colorado DL.
So, there it is. Feel free to vilify me some more.
Thanks for your insight on how this happens. And thank you for your dedication and service to the community.
OneGuy67
07-12-2010, 10:56
Your not a cop. YOU DON'T WRITE IN ALL CAPS. lol j/k
Good write up.
While we are all like minded people here we can get dragged down in minor details and quibble about them to no end. Its just because we are so damn smart and good looking that its hard to find fault in each other IMHO.
So this brings me to the fact that a man protecting his property should not be assumed guilty because he shot at the perpetrators involved. We must assume that he was justified in it until a time that a prosecutor presents evidence to prove a crime was committed.
Letting the criminals off with a slap on the wrist is not ok if any of the other allegations against them are true. Being an undocumented and illegal alien plus part of a car theft ring is pretty bad and reason to push for justice. But if that is the case they are just going to keep doing it because letting them off makes us look like we are pussies.
I'm tired of it and I want something done about crime, criminals and politicians. And I don't care if their feelings or power gets hurt as long as its fair for all the people now and in the future.
Thanks for the thoughts! I don't disagree with you one bit.
People want to put everyone involved into one box and forget there are a number of links here. The police who investigate and file charges are required to meet a 'probable cause' threshold. It is then turned over to the prosecutor who must meet a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold for a conviction. There are a number of cases over the years that I have filed that the DA has elected to not prosecute as they felt they couldn't reach that threshold and we couldn't obtain any more evidence or provide the DA's office with any more substance in order to get them to change their mind.
In this case, Mr. Wallace has a scheduled hearing in September. The two theft suspects are being arraigned today. All three have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. All three should be held accountable for their actions if their actions are proven to be criminal.
I agree with the feeling that the system is weighed towards the suspect and not toward the victim. I feel great empathy for the victims I deal with daily. I feel the fabric of society is rotting. The question is, what can you do? What do you want done about crime and criminals and politicians? Please don't think I am attacking you on this, but it isn't an easy answer.
I have my own opinion and it requires more money from the taxpayer, who currently is on an anti-government agenda right now and not willing to consider funding for more things I would feel would be necessary to fix the problems.
ChunkyMonkey
07-12-2010, 11:09
If only we can flip flop the fed tax rate and local. I am all for higher local tax and minimize federal tax.
wctriumph
07-12-2010, 11:25
Emailed and called.
Thanks for the thoughts! I don't disagree with you one bit.
People want to put everyone involved into one box and forget there are a number of links here. The police who investigate and file charges are required to meet a 'probable cause' threshold. It is then turned over to the prosecutor who must meet a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold for a conviction. There are a number of cases over the years that I have filed that the DA has elected to not prosecute as they felt they couldn't reach that threshold and we couldn't obtain any more evidence or provide the DA's office with any more substance in order to get them to change their mind.
In this case, Mr. Wallace has a scheduled hearing in September. The two theft suspects are being arraigned today. All three have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. All three should be held accountable for their actions if their actions are proven to be criminal.
I agree with the feeling that the system is weighed towards the suspect and not toward the victim. I feel great empathy for the victims I deal with daily. I feel the fabric of society is rotting. The question is, what can you do? What do you want done about crime and criminals and politicians? Please don't think I am attacking you on this, but it isn't an easy answer.
I have my own opinion and it requires more money from the taxpayer, who currently is on an anti-government agenda right now and not willing to consider funding for more things I would feel would be necessary to fix the problems.
Don't feel that speaking your mind in an attack at all. Its fine that you have some more thoughts on it. I don't feel threatened by someone disagreeing with me. Somebody pulling a baseball bat or trying to kick in my door is my idea of threatening. And I usually respond in kind. But a nice conversation about crime in the community that I feel a part of and don't want to see turn into a shithole is something that everyone should talk about. I'm not saying we need a fascist regime or a corn holing liberal utopia by thinking either. But there has to be a point where a person can feel safe in their home and in public free of fear of any second they will become a victim and they can't do a thing about it.
Prosecute both parties if evidence of a crime has been committed. DA's depend on confessions 90% of the time anyway 9% on taking a plea bargain and 1% on winning in front of a jury. However, I don't think that if the old man was justified in shooting a criminal that he should be detained for one second longer than needed. He shouldn't have to go to court to fight for himself or his rights because the DA wanted to be political and make an example out of him. Hoping he may plea to something but fearing taking in front of a judge that will throw it out.
Same for the other side if somehow that was their trailer and they were justified in taking it out and the old man is a coot then let it come out. Even if they were illegal aliens. But they should still be deported, because that is the law and if its unjust or unfair then change the law just don't side step it. Let a judge rule against the law and take it to appeals then the supreme court. That is the check and balance of our system and it should be used first before other bad ideas are contemplated.
About the paying for it thing. Well I'm sure we could afford to cut spending on gay little bridges stretching across I-25 when there is another bridge 40 feet away from it. And use the money from that for better uses. Things like that could be done without and free up a ton of money.
But that's just me I guess?
If only we can flip flop the fed tax rate and local. I am all for higher local tax and minimize federal tax.
That's a heck of an idea.
I agree with the feeling that the system is weighed towards the suspect and not toward the victim. I feel great empathy for the victims I deal with daily. I feel the fabric of society is rotting. The question is, what can you do? What do you want done about crime and criminals and politicians? Please don't think I am attacking you on this, but it isn't an easy answer.
I will take a shot at these questions.
What can you do? When we see an injustice occuring we need to spread the word and band together to put pressure on the powers that be to correct the wrong. Just like I am asking people to do here. It has seemed to start working since this happened in FEB and it a few days after "We The People" started puting the pressure on, the crminals were arrested. The so called investigation seemed to wrap up coincidently a few days after we put the heat on and not in the 5 months prior.
What do you want done about crime and criminals and politicians? Politicans, term limits in all political offices would be a great start for all states and the fed to have. We need to inform each other of what politicans are really doing so we can expose them for what they are and can vote with facts and not the B.S. they say in their campain ads.
The Bush and Obama adminstrations have no intrest in the sovereignty of the United States and no intrest in stoping the illegals and enforcing Americas laws. Bush is gone forever so now we need to focus on the future and vote for the politicans who are interested in our sovereignty.
SA Friday
07-12-2010, 15:25
I don't necessarily disagree with much of your sentiment, Jim, but I would like to comment on your judgement on the investigation aspect of this issue. We simply don't have all the information concerning the investigations into these crimes. I'm far from happy about the residivism of the illegals, expecially after being deported due to criminal activities, returning, but I'm not willing to lay judgement on the investigations of both the illegals nor the 81 year old man. I would sooner have the investigations done in a rational and thorough manner, and that takes time, than rush into a politically influenced decision as to the prosecutorial discretion of charging people with crimes. These matters, especially investigations with media coverage, are rife with injustices from rushing to judgement.
In this case, I believe the aspects of the shooter's actions were easier to desipher a course of action. The thieves actions, although also easy to say they were stealing, could very well have had many secondary considerations or investigations which led to the delay in the DA determining what he would do. His decision to not press charges and allow Wheat Ridge PD to arrest and follow through with prosection on the two thieves could just as easily be a calculated and thought out process as much as it's being argued as gross indifference. There isn't any information to support either side at this point.
I don't necessarily disagree with much of your sentiment, Jim, but I would like to comment on your judgement on the investigation aspect of this issue. We simply don't have all the information concerning the investigations into these crimes.
I agree and thats why I would like to see the justice system determine if Mr. Wallace commited any crime or not, the thieves confessed at the start of the investigation I have heard, I think 5 months is long enough to bring charges against them.
With the fact of the previous plea to ag tres for one of these guys and the numerous pleas to ag tres that have been given specifically to illegals in CO for political reasons, I reserve the right to call B.S. on the investigation that held up the local PD from filing charges.
I do not give law enforcement the benefit of the dought, they must prove everything they do in my eyes, that the way it is, they have to much power to abuse and have numerous abuses in the past as a whole.
We dont need to give LEO's a hard time or treat them poorly, but the burdon of proof on this matter is on them and 5 months has been long enough, its time we got involved and demanded them to answer up on this issue and thats what this is about for me.
SA Friday
07-12-2010, 17:24
I agree and thats why I would like to see the justice system determine if Mr. Wallace commited any crime or not, the thieves confessed at the start of the investigation I have heard, I think 5 months is long enough to bring charges against them.
With the fact of the previous plea to ag tres for one of these guys and the numerous pleas to ag tres that have been given specifically to illegals in CO for political reasons, I reserve the right to call B.S. on the investigation that held up the local PD from filing charges.
I do not give law enforcement the benefit of the dought, they must prove everything they do in my eyes, that the way it is, they have to much power to abuse and have numerous abuses in the past as a whole.
We dont need to give LEO's a hard time or treat them poorly, but the burdon of proof on this matter is on them and 5 months has been long enough, its time we got involved and demanded them to answer up on this issue and thats what this is about for me.
The system IS determining if Mr Wallace committed a crime. The investigators gather the facts, the DA determines if those facts should constitute arrest and a trial (this is where prosecutorial discression happens). If a trial, then the jury gets to determine if Mr Wallace committed a crime. Seriously, did you read the affidavit for Mr Wallace's arrest? That was pretty cut-and-dry stuff.
I'm pretty sure if you were under investigation for a crime and aspects of that crime were not coming out, you would like the investigators to not rush the end product. 5 months is nothing for an investigation. As stated much earlier in this thread, there may have been organized crime in play with the illegals. I've been involved in a few investigations with conspiracies and lots of stolen items. Multiple subjects, multiple victims, trying to recover as much of the stolen posessions as possible, affidavits, technical surveillances... 5 months is nothing. Conversely, Mr Wallace's situation was singular and fairly simple to resolve investigatively.
So far, I haven't seen any LE corruption in this. I haven't seen any DA impropriety or corruption either. All I've seen is a sworn affidavit for Mr Wallace's arrest for facts that even Mr Wallace concurred with in his interview with the Denver Post yesterday.
Jim, you are simply ranting. Nothing I type or say will change that.
Damn... I tried so hard to not get sucked into another long drawn out thread about cop hating and stupidity. Last post on this one for me. I've already deleted too much. [Bang]
Damn... I tried so hard to not get sucked into another long drawn out thread about cop hating and stupidity. Last post on this one for me. I've already deleted too much. [Bang]
Hook, line, and sinker!
StagLefty
07-12-2010, 19:27
Whole story was on the 5 p.m. news tonight-same questions and same confusion.
Byte Stryke
07-12-2010, 19:49
Damn... I tried so hard to not get sucked into another long drawn out thread about cop hating and stupidity. Last post on this one for me. I've already deleted too much. [Bang]
I Quit after people started referring to each other as stupid.
Speaking on MY Behalf... I never intended this to be about cop hating.
My argument has primarily been about the seemingly half-stepped pace at which persons that should not have been there in the first place are being prosecuted.
See also: Why weren't they deported and the border enforced after the first time they were arrested and convicted instead of given a plea.
Broke immigration laws, stole something, (not deported or deported and broke law again), stole something again
Let it be known that the only person I feel I might have caused affront is oneguy67. That was pretty much due to the fact that we don't know your experience, and not all of us were making snap judgements.
Stop in, Say Hi. Tell us about yourself so we know a little more about where you are coming from. (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=97)
I Don't intend to bash anyone in here for their beliefs or opinions. I will fight for your right to speak your mind and hold your beliefs, no matter how fucked up they are. :D
StagLefty
07-13-2010, 07:16
I will fight for your right to speak your mind and hold your beliefs, no matter how fucked up they are. :D
win win [Coffee]
The system IS determining if Mr Wallace committed a crime. The investigators gather the facts, the DA determines if those facts should constitute arrest and a trial (this is where prosecutorial discression happens). If a trial, then the jury gets to determine if Mr Wallace committed a crime. Seriously, did you read the affidavit for Mr Wallace's arrest? That was pretty cut-and-dry stuff.
I'm pretty sure if you were under investigation for a crime and aspects of that crime were not coming out, you would like the investigators to not rush the end product. 5 months is nothing for an investigation. As stated much earlier in this thread, there may have been organized crime in play with the illegals. I've been involved in a few investigations with conspiracies and lots of stolen items. Multiple subjects, multiple victims, trying to recover as much of the stolen posessions as possible, affidavits, technical surveillances... 5 months is nothing. Conversely, Mr Wallace's situation was singular and fairly simple to resolve investigatively.
So far, I haven't seen any LE corruption in this. I haven't seen any DA impropriety or corruption either. All I've seen is a sworn affidavit for Mr Wallace's arrest for facts that even Mr Wallace concurred with in his interview with the Denver Post yesterday.
Jim, you are simply ranting. Nothing I type or say will change that.
Damn... I tried so hard to not get sucked into another long drawn out thread about cop hating and stupidity. Last post on this one for me. I've already deleted too much. [Bang]
I said I agree with you on the process of determining if Mr.Wallace commited a crime.
I dont have the inside on why gov agencies take so long to us average people to file charges and I never said that any one in LE has done any wrong doing in this case, but they may be tring to sneek one over as they have before.
LE and politicans have in the recent and distant past participated in wrong doings and thats the way it is, we cant change it, I wish we could.
Its not cop hating to realize that they are made up of people and people have their own agendas and cops do commit crimes themselves.
I even said we should NOT treat LE bad. I want to clarify, I do NOT think is ok for people to treat cops bad just becase they are cops and I do NOT support anyone that feels they have a need to hurt or kill any LEO's for the sake of killing or hurting a LEO.
I did not realize I was draging you into some stupid cop hating thread since I am not a cop hater and do not advocate cop hating.
We are the watch dogs of our freedom and if we dont start to take this shit seriously after all we have been through as a people in the past 10 years then just hosit the RED flag. OPPS I better stop here before I do get into a rant.[Tooth]
SAFriday, I am just having friendy conversation with you, please dont take it any other way.
Whole story was on the 5 p.m. news tonight-same questions and same confusion.
It was on Fox 31 news this morning. Tom Martino was taking Mr. Wallace's side.
lol
cop haters
http://www.urlesque.com/2010/05/12/26-haters-gonna-hate-images/
[quote=Elhuero;220738]lol
cop haters
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/haterwashington.jpg
OneGuy67
07-13-2010, 12:34
Here is a link to a press release issued by the Wheat Ridge Police Department regarding the ongoing incident. I know it will not adequately answer all the questions that people have who believe their calls and emails were responsible for filing of charges against the two illegal alien suspects...
http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/archives/64/2010-1696%201st%20Degree%20Attempt%20Murder%20Case.pdf
Whole lotta WTF in that article... is Mr. Wallace senile? lol.
Bottom line I still say "Good Shoot". People work hard for their crap and if someone wants to steal it, I say let 'em try with risk to thier own life. Hope that makes sense... I know, I know. I'm a hard-hearted cold bastard.
You could learn a lot from this guy Bear.
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19009&highlight=mugged
Touche Sturart... touche... Point made. I have more self control than wishful thinking... Though sometimes I wish I would've pulled that trigger.
I get just as wound up over thieves as anyone else does, but there has to be a line some where right?
USMC88-93
07-13-2010, 14:18
I live 4 blocks west of there and had no idea this had occurred, I need to catch the news a little more often.
In this time line were is the bullet line for the suspect being picked up or turning himself in?
It was 9 days later before they say they were notified by MATT of the other investigation and to not file charges, April 7th.
So on Feb 26th why was the suspect not charged at the time he was finger printed, is that usually how it goes, you get picked up or turn yourself in on grand theft and are finger printed and released?
What is valid CO id, is that a drivers license? "Both trailer theft suspects were in possession valid Colorado identification; however, their exact immigration status is still being investigated."
This report does little to assure me that all is up to snuff. I am not cop hating, I am sneeking justice.
OneGuy67
07-13-2010, 16:17
In this time line were is the bullet line for the suspect being picked up or turning himself in?
It was 9 days later before they say they were notified by MATT of the other investigation and to not file charges, April 7th.
So on Feb 26th why was the suspect not charged at the time he was finger printed, is that usually how it goes, you get picked up or turn yourself in on grand theft and are finger printed and released?
What is valid CO id, is that a drivers license? "Both trailer theft suspects were in possession valid Colorado identification; however, their exact immigration status is still being investigated."
This report does little to assure me that all is up to snuff. I am not cop hating, I am sneeking justice.
Jim02:
I don't believe I, or anyone else is ever going to ever satisfy you when it comes to this issue, or any related issues. I'm not picking a fight; I'm just acknowledging a conclusion.
I don't see a bullet for the arrests of the two illegal alien suspects, just as you didn't. Does that matter? We know the warrants were signed by a judge last Friday and they were arrested shortly thereafter. Many to include Peter Boyles, suggest they are being given plea bargains in exchange for their testimony against Mr. Wallace. That is hard to say at this point in time, given that the warrants are for the probable cause charges, not a plea bargain. Additionally, the date of the press release was July 9th at 3:16 PM, which could have been before the warrants were signed.
Why didn't they arrest one or both parties on February 26th? I don't know. Obtaining fingerprints and photographs is pretty typical of a lot of agencies when the investigation isn't complete with an arrest. One of the counties I've worked in discouraged the arrest/release pending charges way of going around the 72-hour charging requirement on a legal case law argument. That suspect may have been asked to submit the fingprints/photographs on a voluntary basis instead of being forced to while under arrest. In doing so, it gives the investigators more time to develop their case and not be forced to turn over their investigation to the DA's office in 48 hours, which gives the DA 24 hours to file to meet the 72-hour window.
The second suspect was in the hospital and if he had been arrested while there, the arresting agency then is responsible for the hospital bills. It has been the practice of all the agencies I've worked for to not arrest anyone in the hospital unless absolutely necessary and in this case, for a simple felony theft, it would not be a rational or sound use of police funds.
If this was my case, I would also take my time in filing the case given one of the suspect's is in the hospital and not a flight risk and I've identified the other. Remember, it is a felony theft case. That's it. I may have far more serious cases that would take priority for me at the time.
Neither of the suspects are being charged with "grand theft" as the item stolen was not a vehicle. It is simple felony theft.
The valid CO ID could be either a driver's license or a valid identification card. I don't know. I'm not willing to access the CCIC and jeopardize my career to satisfy curiosity to find out what both have. As I've previously mentioned, people can obtain a valid driver's license in other states with far less documentation than what is required in Colorado and transfer that to Colorado. There have also been people within the DMV who have been caught/arrested/convicted of selling their access to driver's licenses and state identification cards. These people may have a valid Colorado ID and still be here illegally.
Lastly, this was a press release, not a report. Sometimes, the truth doesn't live up to the hype of the conspiracy theories.
I would be very interested in reviewing all the case file to satisfy my professional curiosity to answer the major question of whether or not Mr. Wallace ever left his porch when he capped his rounds off or if he was standing in front of the vehicle as he later alleged. That is the pivotal question into the appropriateness of the charging decision. As it stands right now, the charges are appropriate based upon the arrest affidavit and no where in there is it mentioned that Mr. Wallace was in front of the vehicle or that he approached the vehicle at all.
My $.02...
Byte Stryke
07-13-2010, 16:25
Just so everyone is clear... Im not Cop hating.
Cops did the job they were given.
I am Policy/Law/"pottytician" hating
Just so's we're clear.
I added my responses below.
Jim02:
I don't believe I, or anyone else is ever going to ever satisfy you when it comes to this issue, or any related issues. I'm not picking a fight; I'm just acknowledging a conclusion. I am glad you came back.
I don't see a bullet for the arrests of the two illegal alien suspects, just as you didn't. Does that matter? We know the warrants were signed by a judge last Friday and they were arrested shortly thereafter. Many to include Peter Boyles, suggest they are being given plea bargains in exchange for their testimony against Mr. Wallace. That is hard to say at this point in time, given that the warrants are for the probable cause charges, not a plea bargain. Additionally, the date of the press release was July 9th at 3:16 PM, which could have been before the warrants were signed. Seems an important part of the timeline to me to be missing, no deception implied, seems the timeline and the statement revolve more around Mr.Wallace and not the thieves.
Why didn't they arrest one or both parties on February 26th? I don't know. Obtaining fingerprints and photographs is pretty typical of a lot of agencies when the investigation isn't complete with an arrest. One of the counties I've worked in discouraged the arrest/release pending charges way of going around the 72-hour charging requirement on a legal case law argument. That suspect may have been asked to submit the fingprints/photographs on a voluntary basis instead of being forced to while under arrest. In doing so, it gives the investigators more time to develop their case and not be forced to turn over their investigation to the DA's office in 48 hours, which gives the DA 24 hours to file to meet the 72-hour window. If LE has a suspect that confesss to a felony, they should be arrested and held until arraignment and bond is posted. I thought a felony was a felony because it was a big deal, otherwise it would be a misdemeanor.
The second suspect was in the hospital and if he had been arrested while there, the arresting agency then is responsible for the hospital bills. It has been the practice of all the agencies I've worked for to not arrest anyone in the hospital unless absolutely necessary and in this case, for a simple felony theft, it would not be a rational or sound use of police funds. I agree in the use of police funds, unfortunatly its public funds and I will end up paying for the illegal's hospital bill either way.
If this was my case, I would also take my time in filing the case given one of the suspect's is in the hospital and not a flight risk and I've identified the other. Remember, it is a felony theft case. That's it. I may have far more serious cases that would take priority for me at the time. I thought a felony was a felony because it was a big deal, otherwise it would be a misdemeanor.
Neither of the suspects are being charged with "grand theft" as the item stolen was not a vehicle. It is simple felony theft. I thought grand theft was grand due to the value of the item and not because it was an auto or not, maybe I am wrong on that.
The valid CO ID could be either a driver's license or a valid identification card. I don't know. I'm not willing to access the CCIC and jeopardize my career to satisfy curiosity to find out what both have. As I've previously mentioned, people can obtain a valid driver's license in other states with far less documentation than what is required in Colorado and transfer that to Colorado. There have also been people within the DMV who have been caught/arrested/convicted of selling their access to driver's licenses and state identification cards. These people may have a valid Colorado ID and still be here illegally. Its sad that its so easy for someone to get a valid id with false info and we cant get a law passed to require a valid id for voters because they say its to much a burdon on the poor.
Lastly, this was a press release, not a report. Sometimes, the truth doesn't live up to the hype of the conspiracy theories. Roger that, I thought they released this to try and fill my curiosity and hopefully stop some of the pressure they are getting.
I would be very interested in reviewing all the case file to satisfy my professional curiosity to answer the major question of whether or not Mr. Wallace ever left his porch when he capped his rounds off or if he was standing in front of the vehicle as he later alleged. That is the pivotal question into the appropriateness of the charging decision. As it stands right now, the charges are appropriate based upon the arrest affidavit and no where in there is it mentioned that Mr. Wallace was in front of the vehicle or that he approached the vehicle at all. I agree, I made a poor assumption that he was defending himself and not just shooting from the porch, but quickly corrected that the same day when the affidavet was posted. As the law stands he may be guilty of a crime no matter how much I believe we need to change our law to be like the one in Texas, its not legal at this time, unless you are in danger as defined by the statues.
My $.02...
OneGuy67
07-13-2010, 17:57
We codify our laws and the legislatures make original determinations and then accept recommendations for changes to the statutes in regards to severity, penalty schedules, fines and the like. You may remember the recommendations for change a few months ago for the drug statutues.
We have to have a schedule to ascertain how to handle things, set forth by the legislature. As for the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor theft...$1. If the item stolen is under $1,000, it is a misdemeanor, over $1,000 a felony. This also has been changed in the not so recent past from a $500 threshold. The penalties are different between them as well. Felonies include larger fines and fees and longer possibilities of incarceration. Additionally, the statute of limitations, which is the time I am allowed to bring charges against a person is longer for felonies than misdemeanors.
While I agree that the suspect who spent time in the hospital will not pay his medical bills and ultimately, some entity other than him will have to pay them, be it medicaid, an indigient fund or the hospital eats it and increases their fees to others, it is a big deal to the police or sheriff administrator as just one of these guys can destroy a yearly budget. They can always go back to the city council or county administrators and ask for more funds, but if the well is dry...there are no funds. And frankly, the well is dry. So, the practical practice would be to not arrest them. You group it all together to say it is public funds, and in the most simplistic terms it is, but should the citizens of Wheat Ridge, where the city gets its funding from, have to pay this guys medical bills? How do you go to the Wheat Ridge citizens and say you need a quarter of a million dollars to pay an illegal aliens medical bills in order to arrest him at the time the event occurred for the theft of a $2,000 trailer instead of later when he is released from the hospital? How do you justify that and would you agree if you were a Wheat Ridge citizen?
When I was a patrol officer and had a DUI related accident and the DUI suspect was transported to the hospital, we would show up, get a blood test completed if the suspect agreed and write them a citation on the spot without arresting them. That way, we are not stuck with their E.R. visit bill. If we REALLY wanted them, we would have the security officers call us when they were released and we would arrest them outside the hospital.
We have many sub-sections of theft, but no 'grand theft'. There are variations depending upon value of the item taken, what the item is, damage to the item, etc. C.R.S. 18-4-401 if you are interested in taking a look for yourself online.
I'm not familiar with the Texas law, but I am assuming it deals with the use of deadly force to protect property. I'll be honest and say that scares me, as a person and as a cop. In this situation, if the law allowed Mr. Wallace to shoot at the fleeing vehicle whose occupants stole a $2,000.00 trailer from him, a thing...an object, something that is most likely insured and can be replaced and those rounds missed their target and hit the homes across the street...I am not for that by any stretch of the imagination. To even say it is legal as long as he hit his intended target, I'm not for. I just don't see the need to shoot unless life is endangered. I don't. I can't justify killing someone over my car. Sure, it did piss me off when my car was stolen and I wanted retribution for all the hassle involved in retrieving it, the damage done to it and the suspect getting off with a slap on the wrist for being a juvenile. But to shoot and kill him as he is fleeing in my vehicle? I can't justify that.
Resposes below.
We codify our laws and the legislatures make original determinations and then accept recommendations for changes to the statutes in regards to severity, penalty schedules, fines and the like. You may remember the recommendations for change a few months ago for the drug statutues. I agree the legislatures are responisible for what the laws are, but I think both LEO's and Citizens need to speak up if they think a law is unjust and needs changed. They will only listen when We the People make enough noise and this is a time for us to band together as Citizens and LEO's to make the noise to correct the bad policies that are being set by those that wish to support illegals and criminals alike.
We have to have a schedule to ascertain how to handle things, set forth by the legislature. As for the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor theft...$1. If the item stolen is under $1,000, it is a misdemeanor, over $1,000 a felony. This also has been changed in the not so recent past from a $500 threshold. The penalties are different between them as well. Felonies include larger fines and fees and longer possibilities of incarceration. Additionally, the statute of limitations, which is the time I am allowed to bring charges against a person is longer for felonies than misdemeanors. Since a felony can take away your Constitutional right of a firearm and your God given right to self defense as well as a 3 stikes law (where they exist) can send you to prision for life, a felony is a big deal. they commited a felony and should have been arrested on the spot. (not the hospitalized person as we agree why, see below)
While I agree that the suspect who spent time in the hospital will not pay his medical bills and ultimately, some entity other than him will have to pay them, be it medicaid, an indigient fund or the hospital eats it and increases their fees to others, it is a big deal to the police or sheriff administrator as just one of these guys can destroy a yearly budget. They can always go back to the city council or county administrators and ask for more funds, but if the well is dry...there are no funds. And frankly, the well is dry. So, the practical practice would be to not arrest them. You group it all together to say it is public funds, and in the most simplistic terms it is, but should the citizens of Wheat Ridge, where the city gets its funding from, have to pay this guys medical bills? How do you go to the Wheat Ridge citizens and say you need a quarter of a million dollars to pay an illegal aliens medical bills in order to arrest him at the time the event occurred for the theft of a $2,000 trailer instead of later when he is released from the hospital? How do you justify that and would you agree if you were a Wheat Ridge citizen? I agree with that policy, the departments need to spend that money on gear and supplies, etc. I am just saying it is the tax payers who foot the bill either way.
When I was a patrol officer and had a DUI related accident and the DUI suspect was transported to the hospital, we would show up, get a blood test completed if the suspect agreed and write them a citation on the spot without arresting them. That way, we are not stuck with their E.R. visit bill. If we REALLY wanted them, we would have the security officers call us when they were released and we would arrest them outside the hospital.
We have many sub-sections of theft, but no 'grand theft'. There are variations depending upon value of the item taken, what the item is, damage to the item, etc. C.R.S. 18-4-401 if you are interested in taking a look for yourself online. Thanks for posting the statues.
I'm not familiar with the Texas law, but I am assuming it deals with the use of deadly force to protect property. I'll be honest and say that scares me, as a person and as a cop. In this situation, if the law allowed Mr. Wallace to shoot at the fleeing vehicle whose occupants stole a $2,000.00 trailer from him, a thing...an object, something that is most likely insured and can be replaced and those rounds missed their target and hit the homes across the street...I am not for that by any stretch of the imagination. To even say it is legal as long as he hit his intended target, I'm not for. I just don't see the need to shoot unless life is endangered. I don't. I can't justify killing someone over my car. Sure, it did piss me off when my car was stolen and I wanted retribution for all the hassle involved in retrieving it, the damage done to it and the suspect getting off with a slap on the wrist for being a juvenile. But to shoot and kill him as he is fleeing in my vehicle? I can't justify that. Texas law does allow deadly force to protect property. I agree and would like to see the facts around this such as during this period, have more bystanders been hurt by defenders shooting at criminals, I would also like to see how crime was effected in this state compared to others after Texas passe dthis law. I think we would find that it made them safer and not the oppisite. Like the CCW opponents said that it would make our streets a "ok corral" gun fight, we found the oppisite to be true and crime has went down according to FBI crime records. I would like our law makers to review the facts and if it was showen to be as safe and decrease crime, then we pass the same law.
Peter Boyles was lisitng off the multipule priors for these 2 men and the numerous times they were in touch with the law over the past few years here in CO.
Its sad that after all that they were never picked up and deported, we are in a sad state here in CO and the USA and we need to use this as a rallying cry to let our CO politicans know we have had enough.
Let this be the straw that broke the camels back on CO policy to ignore and support illegal imigration and criminals.
I don't know what happened exactly, whether the guy was in front of the vehicle or only said that to claim self defense, but to me it doesn't matter. Some a**hole tries to steal anything from me and I'm shooting first and asking questions later. Seriously though, an 82 year old guy getting charged? Storey is a waste of energy, he needs to be voted out and that's that. I've sent my email, made my call and hope that the illegals (presumably) get charged and sentenced and the old man gets a slap on the wrist.
I understand that the laws are here to protect and I have to assume it's not a crusade against gun rights as much as it is trying to interpret the letter of the law - it could very well be that he can't prove his life was in danger, but that shouldn't make any difference in charging the guys who tried to rip him off.
ChunkyMonkey
07-14-2010, 10:36
dead horse.
ChunkyMonkey
07-14-2010, 10:39
Peter Boyles was lisitng off the multipule priors for these 2 men and the numerous times they were in touch with the law over the past few years here in CO.
Its sad that after all that they were never picked up and deported, we are in a sad state here in CO and the USA and we need to use this as a rallying cry to let our CO politicans know we have had enough.
Let this be the straw that broke the camels back on CO policy to ignore and support illegal imigration and criminals.
Jim,
LEO used to report felons to the ICE all the time. However, the fed failed to enforce the law so bad that lately, local LE departments just shy away from dealing with the ICE. At least that seems to be the explanations I am getting for few LE friends I know. Blame it on the Fed.
Any LE care to chime in when it comes to illegal immigrant felons?
OneGuy67
07-14-2010, 11:51
Jim:
We have legislatures for a reason in our Republic form of government with the hopes that they can be properly educated on issues and make the correct decisions on statutory decisions. Not always true, I've give you. There are groups which research and provide information to the legislatures at their request when discussing a specific topic as well as stakeholder committees who provide insight.
However, We've seen what the uninformed mass we call the general population can do to screw up government in the form of the Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment that were passed using glossy ads and diluted facts. Shortly, we'll vote on Amendments 60, 61 and Prop 101 and people will vote for these atrocities because of what a glossy ad will tell them and not because they actually read the amendments and see how badly it will screw up government. With the anti-government sentiment that is flowing, people will vote for these out of spite.
Felonies are what they are, the result of a codified schedule that is put in place by the legislature. It isn't the cops who decide at what level something is classified as a felony, it's the legislature. You look at it from a gun owner's perspective with your concern of losing your right to own firearms, but being simplistic and saying all people accused of committing a felony need to be arrested on the spot isn't realistic. There may be deciding factors that need to be investigated further, need to be forensically examined further, need to interview more people, etc. We have judicial rules in place that require specific actions for every action law enforcement takes and sometimes you just aren't ready to present your case to the DA if you were to make the physical arrest at that time. That's one reason why there are so many arrest warrants in the system as investigators have gotten them signed after they completed their investigation. It isn't so black and white.
I can't speak to Texas and their laws and whether or not their crime rate has gone down after such laws were put in place. It is simplistic to say that there is a direct correlation between the CCW laws and reduced crime as there are other factors in place that also influence it. That correlation is always the big argument of pro CCW groups to tout, but it is simplistic. Just like increased police patrols cannot specifically state they are the reason crime is down in a specific area, but is a favorite of law enforcement administrators to tout. There are a number of other influencing factors that also must be taken into consideration at all times.
Interesting dialogue. I think most others have lost interest with the string.
OneGuy67
07-14-2010, 11:56
Jim,
LEO used to report felons to the ICE all the time. However, the fed failed to enforce the law so bad that lately, local LE departments just shy away from dealing with the ICE. At least that seems to be the explanations I am getting for few LE friends I know. Blame it on the Fed.
Any LE care to chime in when it comes to illegal immigrant felons?
We still report as required by state law to ICE when we have in custody anyone we believe may be an illegal alien. We do tend to 'pass the buck' on this particular issue most of the time though as we jail the person and it becomes the responsibility of the sheriff's office to make the notification. Whether or not ICE does anything with that notification, I do not know.
The ICE leadership is part of the problem, when you have the ICE director show up on the news today telling AZ that they may not responed to the AZ LE when they report illegals becuase he does not agree with AZ law.You have Obama chasing AZ for enforcing the FED law and ignoring the sanctuary cities like San Fran who pass laws that go against the FED law.
We have Obama chasing AZ for enforcing the FED law and ignoring the sanctuary cities like San Fran who pass laws that go against the FED law.
We know our current government is FUBAR'ed.
Response
Jim:
We have legislatures for a reason in our Republic form of government with the hopes that they can be properly educated on issues and make the correct decisions on statutory decisions. Not always true, I've give you. There are groups which research and provide information to the legislatures at their request when discussing a specific topic as well as stakeholder committees who provide insight.
However, We've seen what the uninformed mass we call the general population can do to screw up government in the form of the Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment that were passed using glossy ads and diluted facts. Shortly, we'll vote on Amendments 60, 61 and Prop 101 and people will vote for these atrocities because of what a glossy ad will tell them and not because they actually read the amendments and see how badly it will screw up government. With the anti-government sentiment that is flowing, people will vote for these out of spite.
Felonies are what they are, the result of a codified schedule that is put in place by the legislature. It isn't the cops who decide at what level something is classified as a felony, it's the legislature. I understand the cops dont make the law, on another note the cops work with it everyday and they are themselves citizens who should and may, make their voices heard when they know something wrong is happening. You look at it from a gun owner's perspective I look at it from a Constitutional Patriot's perspective, guns are required to maintain our Republic according to the founding fathers and that is why it is a right. with your concern of losing your right to own firearms, but being simplistic and saying all people accused of committing a felony need to be arrested on the spot isn't realistic.There may be deciding factors that need to be investigated further, need to be forensically examined further, need to interview more people, etc. We have judicial rules in place that require specific actions for every action law enforcement takes and sometimes you just aren't ready to present your case to the DA if you were to make the physical arrest at that time. That's one reason why there are so many arrest warrants in the system as investigators have gotten them signed after they completed their investigation. It isn't so black and white. That may be true and I believe you when you say it is, but when someone confesses to a felony I see no reason they are not arrested and I read that the suspect that was not shot, confessed to the cops.
I can't speak to Texas and their laws and whether or not their crime rate has gone down after such laws were put in place. It is simplistic to say that there is a direct correlation between the CCW laws and reduced crime as there are other factors in place that also influence it. That correlation is always the big argument of pro CCW groups to tout, but it is simplistic. Just like increased police patrols cannot specifically state they are the reason crime is down in a specific area, but is a favorite of law enforcement administrators to tout. There are a number of other influencing factors that also must be taken into consideration at all times. I agree that its not as simple as saying we did this and that 1 thing reduced crime. To say more people would be hurt by people trying to take advantage of the new right to defend thier property is the same thing the CCW opponents tried to use and that was proven false was the point I was after.
Interesting dialogue. I think most others have lost interest with the string.
OneGuy67
07-14-2010, 14:18
Here is a simple statement based upon the facts as I understand them. I hope this clears up your question as to why a suspect wasn't arrested.
You have a crime perpetrated by two suspects. We know who was driving the vehicle and who was the passenger based upon injuries and observed ballistic evidence (bullet holes in the vehicle and suspect). Victim can't identify which of the two parties did what in the act of stealing a trailer. One suspect is interviewed and one cannot be interviewed due to injuries. The non-injured suspect provides a confession (specifically what did he confess to? Involvement? Committing the crime? Just being the driver? Tried to talk the other out of it?) to his involvement. Do you arrest based upon that alone? What if he lied? Minimized his involvement? Wouldn't you want to be able to speak to the other suspect to see if his statement (if he is willing to give one) matches or conflicts? Did he tell the investigators where the trailer was located (it was recovered, but nothing provided indicates how it was recovered)?
So, you charge the non-injured suspect and he pleads guilty or gets a plea and is sentenced and then the injured one talks and conflicts what you just convicted the non-injured suspect of. Problems? Yep. Easier to get all your ducks in a row before giving the case to the DA for prosecution. I won't even get into the fact the DA probably won't take the case until all the suspects involved are identified and interviewed if possible.
Byte Stryke
07-14-2010, 14:25
Oneguy67:
you make some very valid and compelling arguments for the LE Side of things.
The Ducks in a row, Reasons not to arrest at that time for county financial liabilities.
"I have a hard enough time paying MY Medical."
I See things a bit different from your side.
This Doesn't mean I like what the DA over there is doing...
Just means I See things better from your point of view.
:D
OneGuy67
07-14-2010, 15:11
That's all I can ask!
The ICE leadership is part of the problem, when you have the ICE director show up on the news today telling AZ that they may not responed to the AZ LE when they report illegals becuase he does not agree with AZ law.You have Obama chasing AZ for enforcing the FED law and ignoring the sanctuary cities like San Fran who pass laws that go against the FED law.
We have Obama chasing AZ for enforcing the FED law and ignoring the sanctuary cities like San Fran who pass laws that go against the FED law.
We know our current government is FUBAR'ed.
If the will of the people, equality under the law, and justice are not upheld a government is no longer llegitimate. Particularly when that government actively acts against what little its people can accomplish despite the political class.
Not that I'm going to do much about it but bitch on a forum. [Stooge]
I could beat a dead horse right now. I'm so pissed about crime. Last night some guys stole the tail gate off my brothers truck. They were speaking spanish and left is a ford. WTF did they need a tail gate off a dodge for?
I didn't shoot em because they didn't try and run me down but I would have if my life was threatened.
Here is a simple statement based upon the facts as I understand them. I hope this clears up your question as to why a suspect wasn't arrested.
You have a crime perpetrated by two suspects. We know who was driving the vehicle and who was the passenger based upon injuries and observed ballistic evidence (bullet holes in the vehicle and suspect). Victim can't identify which of the two parties did what in the act of stealing a trailer. One suspect is interviewed and one cannot be interviewed due to injuries. The non-injured suspect provides a confession (specifically what did he confess to? Involvement? Committing the crime? Just being the driver? Tried to talk the other out of it?) to his involvement. Do you arrest based upon that alone? What if he lied? Minimized his involvement? Wouldn't you want to be able to speak to the other suspect to see if his statement (if he is willing to give one) matches or conflicts? Did he tell the investigators where the trailer was located (it was recovered, but nothing provided indicates how it was recovered)?
So, you charge the non-injured suspect and he pleads guilty or gets a plea and is sentenced and then the injured one talks and conflicts what you just convicted the non-injured suspect of. Problems? Yep. Easier to get all your ducks in a row before giving the case to the DA for prosecution. I won't even get into the fact the DA probably won't take the case until all the suspects involved are identified and interviewed if possible.
Thanks for that info. I would like to see the criminals off the street as soon as possible but that explanation makes perfect sense.
If the will of the people, equality under the law, and justice are not upheld a government is no longer llegitimate. Particularly when that government actively acts against what little its people can accomplish despite the political class.
I agree with the above statement and support cleansing DC, we have an election coming in 2010 and 2012, lets see what we can do. I do not think in prior years people were as awake as they are today, I think we have a real good chance to get things going in the correct direction and we will start here.
Not that I'm going to do much about it but bitch on a forum. [Stooge]
I assume your saying that your not going to do much but bitch in a forum, and not me.
I could beat a dead horse right now. I'm so pissed about crime. Last night some guys stole the tail gate off my brothers truck. They were speaking spanish and left is a ford. WTF did they need a tail gate off a dodge for?
I didn't shoot em because they didn't try and run me down but I would have if my life was threatened.
I lock my tailgate often for this reason, maybe they go get someone elses thats not locked, I could use a new tailgate though.
I assume your saying that your not going to do much but bitch in a forum, and not me.
Well, I meant it as the sadly necessary "I won't run a cessna into an IRS office about it." [Coffee]
claimbuster
07-14-2010, 19:27
What is the real story? Did he shoot at them while they were fleeing? Or, were they trying to run him down when he shot? I have heard both stories.
I makes a whole lot of difference in the face of the law.
Right, wrong; fair, unfair; I hope you guys all know inflicting deadly force on a fleeing suspect after the threat has subsided is a big mistake.
If a guy steals my wheel barrow out of my back yard and is running down the street, I do NOT have any right to exercise deadly force.
fair, unfair;
I remember an old saying everytime someone claims that something is "unfair"... It goes like: The only "Fair" in life is where you take pigs to win ribbons. Just thought I should share, thanks grandpa.
If a guy steals my wheel barrow out of my back yard and is running down the street, I do NOT have any right to exercise deadly force.
No you don't... and I think that's unfortunate.
gnihcraes
07-15-2010, 10:42
but if you are about to be run over by a truck with two people in it stealing your stuff, and you turn or move out of it's path and shoot through the side of the truck striking those persons... (which is what sounds like this guy did)
point your car at an officer and pretend you're going to run him down and I bet you get shot at - no matter how close you are to him...
but if you are about to be run over by a truck with two people in it stealing your stuff, and you turn or move out of it's path and shoot through the side of the truck striking those persons... (which is what sounds like this guy did)
point your car at an officer and pretend you're going to run him down and I bet you get shot at - no matter how close you are to him...
there are many things that police can do that regular citizens would go to prison for.
OneGuy67
07-15-2010, 11:22
but if you are about to be run over by a truck with two people in it stealing your stuff, and you turn or move out of it's path and shoot through the side of the truck striking those persons... (which is what sounds like this guy did)
point your car at an officer and pretend you're going to run him down and I bet you get shot at - no matter how close you are to him...
If that is what he did. He failed to mention that little tidbit to the police and that would have been a BIG point to the situation. I don't know how this point came out, or if Peter Boyles is fanning this point without due knowledge to make the case sound better for Mr. Wallace. It is the turning piece to the prosecution and he is being prosecuted based upon the police reports (arrest affidavit) and no where in it does he mention that very important point.
If that is what he did. He failed to mention that little tidbit to the police and that would have been a BIG point to the situation. I don't know how this point came out, or if Peter Boyles is fanning this point without due knowledge to make the case sound better for Mr. Wallace. It is the turning piece to the prosecution and he is being prosecuted based upon the police reports (arrest affidavit) and no where in it does he mention that very important point.
just remember, any mistakes make by the police are the fault of the legislature!
Byte Stryke
07-15-2010, 11:31
If that is what he did. He failed to mention that little tidbit to the police and that would have been a BIG point to the situation. I don't know how this point came out, or if Peter Boyles is fanning this point without due knowledge to make the case sound better for Mr. Wallace. It is the turning piece to the prosecution and he is being prosecuted based upon the police reports (arrest affidavit) and no where in it does he mention that very important point.
Playing Devils Advocate, Not everything you tell a police officer gets put into the report, not everything from the report gets put into the arrest affidavit. People are just that, fallible. (Some more than others) <-- Not Cop Hatin
I would like to see Mr. Walace's written statement of the event though.
for me personally, it would answer quite a few questions.
OneGuy67
07-15-2010, 11:35
Playing Devils Advocate, Not everything you tell a police officer gets put into the report, not everything from the report gets put into the arrest affidavit. People are just that, fallible. (Some more than others) <-- Not Cop Hatin
I would like to see Mr. Walace's written statement of the event though.
for me personally, it would answer quite a few questions.
I would agree with what you say for the most part Byte Stryke. The arrest affidavit is a down and dirty version of events to show the probable cause for the arrest. However, that ONE point would HAVE TO HAVE been put in as it shows an affirmative defense and we are required by case law to provide affirmative defenses in reports if provided one. It is a KEY piece to the prosecution. Without it, the case really isn't prosecutable on the charges alleged.
OneGuy67
07-15-2010, 11:40
An example:
Wife shoots husband. Wife is arrested. Prosecuted for attempted murder because the facts show she knowingly picked up a loaded firearm, pointed it at her husband and pulled the trigger. Clear cut case.
Affirmative defense:
Huband was drunk and had slapped her around. Husband picked up object and was advancing on her. Wife in fear of her life shoots husband.
Different picture altogether now and REQUIRED by case law to provide. Not to mention that it is the entirety of the events and all events should be placed into the reports.
This is a very simple explanation. Please don't dog on me for details. I came up with this off the cuff.
Byte Stryke
07-15-2010, 12:11
I would agree with what you say for the most part Byte Stryke. The arrest affidavit is a down and dirty version of events to show the probable cause for the arrest. However, that ONE point would HAVE TO HAVE been put in as it shows an affirmative defense and we are required by case law to provide affirmative defenses in reports if provided one. It is a KEY piece to the prosecution. Without it, the case really isn't prosecutable on the charges alleged.
I guess I Forgot the initial part of that.
I Do apologize
it should read:
People don't always tell the police officers everything, Not everything you tell a police officer gets put into the report, not everything from the report gets put into the arrest affidavit. People are just that, fallible.it wasn't meant to point at any one person, more to highlight the flaws in the system of reporting facts.
I've seen some "Streamlined" reports that are further "Summarized" and then "Condensed"...
[Eek2]
I don't know what's going on here?
claimbuster
07-15-2010, 19:12
Let's just hope for the benefit of the good guys, that the truck was heading towards the shooter and not away from him!
IMHO, that will be a deciding factor!
Byte Stryke
07-15-2010, 19:42
Let's just hope for the benefit of the good guys, that the truck was heading towards the shooter and not away from him!
IMHO, that will be a deciding factor!
well here's the thing, IF it can be proven that the truck HAD been heading for him in an effort to be used as a weapon, it could be argued that the shooting could be justified as "he might be coming back at me again".
Much in the way if someone fires at you and turns with gun in Hand...
is he running away, trying to gain better position? Allot of courts have decided that so long as he has proven a viable threat and as he has the weapon he remains so.
your individual results and opinions may vary
wheres oneguy67 at? he might be able to shed a little better light on such a situation should it exist.
OneGuy67
07-15-2010, 22:22
I recently attended a class on reaction time in regards to shootings, dealing with officer involved shootings. My office has dealt with a number of these recently. Very interesting information being presented.
I'm not sure on the specific situation you have mentioned, given someone running away. If that person did turn and present a threat by raising a weapon towards you, then I don't think there will be an issue. However, the problem will be proving that in the event of a shooting barring additional witnesses or video, because the evidence may show improper use of deadly force.
I'm not sure I answered your question though...
Byte Stryke
07-16-2010, 11:44
English Sucks, Sorry
If a aggressor had confirmed itself as a Deadly threat, and such still possessed the weapon, regardless of position, turned away, to side, could it not be argued that deadly force could be used against the initial aggressor?
For example, High speed pursuit fugitive attempts to use vehicle against a dismounted officer deploying spikes, regardless of his lack of a firearm and his position to other officers as well as the initial officer, could it not still be argued that he had used the vehicle as a weapon and as such should STILL be considered armed and dangerous? Thus Justifying use of deadly force.
Obviously if the vehicle becomes disabled and he has no other weapons the status would change.
OneGuy67
07-16-2010, 21:13
Not a simple question to answer. There has been some movement in the courts to not like the shoot-at-the-vehicle-because-he-was-going-to-run-me-down argument that officers have been utilizing. The courts have been saying lately that if the officer can move, he should.
I did one of these last year and I recommended charges on the officer. The DA's office wouldn't bite.
Byte Stryke
07-16-2010, 23:33
good info to know.
Thanks
Not a simple question to answer. There has been some movement in the courts to not like the shoot-at-the-vehicle-because-he-was-going-to-run-me-down argument that officers have been utilizing. The courts have been saying lately that if the officer can move, he should.
I did one of these last year and I recommended charges on the officer. The DA's office wouldn't bite.
The police will not be motivated to be thugs if they start getting charged anytime they commit a felony.
Last time I called the cops they took their sweet time. But I still call them its not a bash just saying they aren't perfect.
OneGuy67
07-17-2010, 12:42
The police will not be motivated to be thugs if they start getting charged anytime they commit a felony.
Last time I called the cops they took their sweet time. But I still call them its not a bash just saying they aren't perfect.
I don't know where you live or who the law enforcement agency is for your community so I can't speak to their call times, call load or behavior.
I can say I've worked at a few agencies and all bad apples were found out pretty quickly and most were charged. A couple got away from criminal charges due to legal maneuvering, but they will never be cops again. Believe it or not, cops do not like other cops who are dirty or sully or tarnish the profession. We don't. We don't have the public's respect as indicated by most of the posts on this thread, to include yours. I have investigated and arrested cops and will continue to do so until I retire. NOBODY is above the law; no one. Not a cop, not a state, local or federal politician, not lawyers, judges or school teachers. No one.
When I was in uniform and on patrol, the cops who I caught for speeding or other minor traffic violations got a pass on the ticket, but so did most other people. DUI's and other more serious behavior, ALL got arrested. That's what was taught to me and I taught that belief when I was a training officer.
Its not something that can be changed over night.
OneGuy67
07-17-2010, 15:57
That's true and I can't make excuses for some agencies who refuse to change. I won't name agencies, but there are a few that I try to steer people interested in policing away from, because they are still stuck in the 1970's mentality. I've seen good people go to these agencies and become someone I can't respect. They are forever tainted because other agencies won't take them for employees.
I personally think it comes down to who the agencies hire. I've been a cop for nearly 20 years and I've always advocated for a well-rounded person to be hired. The ideal candidate would be college educated, spent time in the military, is married and is in their late 20's or 30's. These factors cover most of the gamut in terms of what pieces make a good officer. Common sense, down to earth, smart, even tempered, negotiable, doesn't take themselves too seriously aren't skills that can be taught in the police academy; they come from life and life's experiences.
The larger agencies can't hire people with these qualities in the quantity they need. The smaller agencies with one or two openings at a time can be more selective with their hiring decisions. When you hire 40-80 people at at time and have court mandated hiring priorities, you don't get the same quality of officer as the smaller agencies and then you put that new, impressionable officer with the old guard who teach policing from an archiac, agency specific point of view...you see the problem.
During the years I was stationed in Germany in the Army, I got to see their national police up close (sometimes, too up close. I was young.) and for them, there is only one agency and you get assigned to a specific city, but were trained the same as the guy in the next city. When promotions come, there is advancement across the country, but you still work for the same agency. England is similar. What would happen if we did something like that here? Not that it would as no one would be willing to give their power, their police agency, their control. But seriously, for the sake of argument, what would happen? Would it be beneficial or not? Something to think on.
Byte Stryke
07-17-2010, 16:59
During the years I was stationed in Germany in the Army, I got to see their national police up close (sometimes, too up close. I was young.)
hahaha, My head still hurtds when I think of the "Fully Automatic" Steel-spring Batons...
:D
Memories
hurley842002
07-21-2010, 08:28
Heard a very generic report on the radio this morning, about "the elderly man, potentially facing charges", not being charged for the shooting. Didn't say if it was Wallace or not. Anybody hear anything further on this?
Keep the heat on and keep informed of how Law Enforcement favors illegals over citizens in CO. (law enforcement = politicans, chiefs, sherrifs, da's and everyone else who makes policy)
A lot of interesting info has come to the surface since we last talked about this, to much for me to put in here.
Peter Boyles and has been doing a great job of investigating this and finding out what law enforcement cant seem to explain with their b.s. press releases.
If you have time to listen to his show during your work day and have not been, catch up here http://www.khow.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=fullshow_boyles.xml
The illegals that commited the crime, have been in the police hands many many many times before this, including 2 felony theft incidents where they were given Agriculture trespassing pleas so they would not face jail and reporting to ice for deportation due to the sanctuary policy that CO follows.
Peter called the guy that is registered for the actual SSN that one of the illegals used and he said he was not interested in knowing that his SSN was in use by illegals and hung up. This guys voicemail has an english and spanish message on it. They found that his SSN is in use by several people as well.
With all the b.s. and cover up that law enforcement is dishing out on this, this is getting very interesting, unfortunatly this is standard policy in Colorado to treat illegals to a very lenient justice system that looks the other way and does everything they can to make sure they are free do anything they want.
The primary ballots are in mailboxs now, please try your best to vote for those that oppose illegal amenisty in all offices.
hurley842002
07-21-2010, 08:36
The primary ballots are in mailboxs now, please try your best to vote for those that oppose illegal amenisty in all offices.
Got mine yesterday [Beer]
Heard a very generic report on the radio this morning, about "the elderly man, potentially facing charges", not being charged for the shooting. Didn't say if it was Wallace or not. Anybody hear anything further on this?
This was another man who shot someone breaking into his house.
Here i found the story I think you are refering to http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24327608/detail.html
Funny how this could be another illegal from the name and pic but there is no mention of it. Lets leave it at that.
hurley842002
07-21-2010, 08:46
This was another man who shot someone breaking into his house.
Here i found the story I think you are refering to http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24327608/detail.html
Funny how this could be another illegal from the name and pic but there is no mention of it. Lets leave it at that.
Ahh, I kinda figured it was too quick for them to come to a verdict. At least justice was served in the above story.
OneGuy67
07-21-2010, 19:20
Keep the heat on and keep informed of how Law Enforcement favors illegals over citizens in CO. (law enforcement = politicans, chiefs, sherrifs, da's and everyone else who makes policy)
A lot of interesting info has come to the surface since we last talked about this, to much for me to put in here.
Peter Boyles and has been doing a great job of investigating this and finding out what law enforcement cant seem to explain with their b.s. press releases.
The illegals that commited the crime, have been in the police hands many many many times before this, including 2 felony theft incidents where they were given Agriculture trespassing pleas so they would not face jail and reporting to ice for deportation due to the sanctuary policy that CO follows.
With all the b.s. and cover up that law enforcement is dishing out on this, this is getting very interesting, unfortunatly this is standard policy in Colorado to treat illegals to a very lenient justice system that looks the other way and does everything they can to make sure they are free do anything they want.
Jim02: Stop drinking the Peter Boyles kool-aid. His "investigation" isn't much other than looking for someone else to blame for a situation, while not immediately caused by Mr. Wallace, Mr. Wallace got himself into trouble all on his own.
I take umbrige to your assessment that "law enforcement" is to blame or are trying to hide behind something. Nothing to hide behind. Please immerse yourself in the Colorado state statutes which do not give local law enforcement to include the local district attorney's any power to do anything about illegal immigration other than report them to I.C.E. That's it. I can't speak to the agricultural trespass and frankly, neither can you. You and I both do not know if that was a common plea those particular district attorney's used on specific charges and you and I don't know who gained the benefit of those type of plea's that were other than hispanic and potentially illegal aliens. How many white males got the same plea? You and I both do not know. To speculate it was only the illegal alien and to say it was done to keep them out of jail and deportation is asinine. The district attorney doesn't determine jail or prison, the judge does.
Exactly what is law enforcement covering up? Keep in mind, I listen to Peter Boyles almost every day and he is becoming quite the shit stirer with his half-baked conspiracy theories in place over this case. He believes Mr. Wallace was in danger of being run over when he stepped aside and shot. So far, nothing that has been released has shown he even left the safety of his house before shooting.
Yep, it appears the two theft suspects are here illegally. So what? What does that have to do with the theft? Boyles argument that if they had been deported for their previous criminal acts, they wouldn't have stolen the trailer. How does he know? Apparently, the border isn't very well protected and they are streaming over by the millions. How hard would it be for them to come back?
Do you honestly think that D.A. Scott Storey is going to drop charges against Mr. Wallace, especially now that Boyles is running his suck the way he has been? He was rude to him when he was on his show and has been calling for every person listening and hearing Boyles' side of the story to call and email D.A. Storey, and from what I've heard from the D.A.'s office, there are a number of uneducated people out there coming up with all kinds of crap and statements about this situation that they know nothing about, except what Boyles tells them. Sheep.
I hate to say this, but I am looking forward to Mr. Wallace's preliminary hearing in August and pending trial, just so this comes to an end. I don't want to see an old man spend the rest of his life in jail if convicted, but c'mon people! Take off the damn glasses, put down the glass of kool-aid and look at the situation rationally, instead of emotionally.
Byte Stryke
07-21-2010, 21:15
c'mon people! Take off the damn glasses, put down the glass of kool-aid and look at the situation rationally, instead of emotionally.
DOOM!
/sarcasm
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.